Dan AoDepartment of Sociology

The Chinese University of Hong KongMay 30th , 2008

Social capital is defined as resources embedded in one’s social network (Lin, 2001).

From the perspective of resource composition, two types of social capital can be identified: ◦ Homophilous (homophily)◦ heterophilous (heterophily)

Lazarsfeld & Merton 1954

2

There is voluminous evidence in the literature that the principle of homophily exists in social networks (e.g., Fischer 1982; Homans 1950; Laumann 1966, 1973, 1976; Lazarsfeld & Merton 1954; Lin 1982; Marsden 1981, 1988, 1990; McPherson et al. 2001).

The extent of homophily varies for each respondent, which may be one of the sources that differentiations in a variety of outcomes come out.

3

Less attention has been paid to the heterophily principle.

How are the ties with groups other than that to which a respondent belongs formed?◦ Are the heterophilous ties formed randomly?◦ Are the heterophilous ties formed with certain

patterns? Social distance (Bogardus (1933), Laumann

(1966), or McFarland and Brown (1973))

4

Marsden (1988) examined the patterns of inbreeding and social distance on respondent-alter dyads discussing important matters using data collected with the name generator in the 1985 GSS.

The stratifying variables include:◦ Age◦ Education◦ Race/ethnicity◦ Religion◦ Sex

5

His main conclusions are:◦ Discussion relations are most constrained by

race/ethnicity, and least by sex and education; ◦ Inbreeding effects are present for all five

stratifying variables, and account for virtually all structure in dyads classified by race/ethnicity and religion; and

◦ Appreciable social distance biases in the formation of these strong ties are found for age and education, but not for other stratifying variables.

6

Smith-Lovin et al. (2007) replicated the name generator questions in the 2004 GSS.

1985 2004? They found that:

◦ (1) racial homophily is still the most salient dimension among these five statuses and has remained relatively constant over the two decades;

◦ (2) the tendencies of homophily over other statuses increase, with the exception of sex.

7

To date, no studies have directly examined the patterns of homophily and heterophily using position-generated network data.

Studying network data from the position generator can yield fruitful results.

The differences between the name-generator and the position generator.

8

The name generator technique: Stronger ties, stronger

role relations, or geographically limited ties (Campbell & Lee 1991)

Consisting mostly of the homophilous ties (friends and relatives)

Core network

The position generator technique:◦ A more diverse social

ties in terms of tie strength, role relations, and number of ties

◦ Composed of both homophilous (friends and relatives) and heterophilous ties (friends of friends, acquaintances)

◦ Extended network

9

This study tries to follow the methods used in Marsden (1988) to model the patterns of homophily and heterophily using the position-generated network data in SC-USA 2004-5.

Two types of special ties: ◦ (1) very close ties◦ (2) non-kin ties

10

11

12

13

14

As Marsden (1988) mentioned in his study, respondent-alter pairs are cluster sampled within respondents, therefore, there may be a design effect due to the clustering.

It is important to examine the effect of survey design on the distribution of X2 and propose simple adjustments of this statistic.

Holt et al. (1980) propose a one moment adjustment of the X2 : a weighted sum of cell design effects.

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

The inbreeding bias exists in all of the three statuses, although the extent varies.

Compared with core discussion networks, the results show that in the extended networks, the degree of racial/ethnic homophily is still tremendously strong.

It helps explain why a certain racial/ethnic group (Latinos) is disadvantaged in the access to social capital and the eventual utility of social capital in status attainment.

26